The New Anti-Racist Racists

There is a trait campaigning groups have that is well known. Once they have achieved their objective, they continue. Usually it is because there are people with salaries at stake, pensions, perks and more.

Suddenly the SPLC seemed to spy a new fascism. The SPLC saw this new fascism in people who objected to people flying planes into skyscrapers, decapitating journalists and aid workers and blowing up the finish line of marathons.

One got the impression that it had become immensely useful for some people to be able to smear those concerned about Islamic fundamentalism, and try to make them akin to Nazis. The only other movements who find this equally useful are, of course, Islamic extremists.

Here is this "anti-racist" organisation, largely made up of white men who present themselves as being anti-racists, and yet who spend their time attacking Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a black immigrant woman. At the top of any list of "hate-groups," the SPLC must in future be sure to place itself.

The SPLC's list of "anti-Muslim activists" also includes a practising Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, one of the most principled and courageous people around calling out the extremists in his faith for their bigotry and hatred. He does so, like Hirsi Ali, at no small risk to himself.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), based in Montgomery, Alabama, has struck again. The self-appointed boundary-markers and policemen of free discussion have issued what they call a "Field Guide" to help "guide" the media in "countering prominent anti-Muslim extremists." It is hard to know where to start with such idiocy, so let us start from the beginning.

The SPLC was founded in 1971, ostensibly to fight for civil rights among other good causes. By the end of its first decade it was targeting the KKK and other racist organisations. So far so good. But like many a campaigning organisation, they experienced the happy blow of basically winning their argument. By the 1990s, there were mercifully few racist groups in America going about unchallenged. When a member of the KKK cropped up everybody in civil society pretty much understood that here was a bad person who should not be given a free pass.

But there is an odd trait in campaigning groups that is well known. Once they have achieved their objective, they continue. Why is this so? Usually it is because there are people with salaries at stake, pensions, perks and more. Campaigning for a particular thing or against a particular thing has become their way of life and their means of earning. And so they find a way to continue. For some years, the SPLC staggered around in such a manner, as pointless and purposeless an organisation as could be imagined.

And then in the last decade something happened to this increasingly obscure institution. It is not for me to speculate why or how this happened, whether it had to do with new staff or new money, but the focus of the organisation changed. Suddenly the SPLC seemed to spy a new fascism. They did not spy it in people who flew planes into skyscrapers, decapitated American journalists and aid workers or blew up the finish line of marathons. No, the SPLC saw it somewhere else. The SPLC saw this new fascism in people who objected to people flying planes into skyscrapers, decapitating journalists and aid workers and blowing up the finish line of marathons. For the SPLC, the big threat on the horizon was not Islamists but those people who objected to Islamists -- that is, people they called "Islamophobes." In the same way, they did not seem to have any particular problem with jihad, but they developed a huge problem with people they called "counter-jihadists." To their existing lists of designated "hate-groups" they now added such people.

More honest groups might have balked at such a stance. More informed groups would have walked a thousand miles from such a stance. But the SPLC did no such thing. In fact, one got the impression that it had become immensely useful for some people to be able to smear those concerned about Islamic fundamentalism and try to make them akin to Nazis. The only other movements who find this equally useful are, of course, Islamic extremists.

The media today in America are increasingly wary of Islamic extremists. Most journalists do not want the parameters of what should be discussed dictated by Islamic fanatics. Whereas an organisation such as the SPLC, which did something good forty years ago, is the sort of institution that the media is for the time-being happy to hear from. Perhaps after this latest development that will no longer be the case.

The SPLC's latest production is disgraceful, discrediting and sloppy even by its own increasingly disgraceful, discredited and sloppy standards. For this publication, they have listed "Fifteen anti-Muslim activists," most likely in the hope that they will scare the media off inviting them on, or the wider public from being allowed to listen to them.

Among the list is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The SPLC lists a set of allegedly outrageous things that she has said, which have appeared in such obscure and extreme venues as The Wall Street Journal and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. They mention in passing -- as though it were an incidental mishap -- that Hirsi Ali's film-making partner, Theo van Gogh, was slaughtered on an Amsterdam street by a jihadist, with a death-threat to Hirsi Ali pinned into van Gogh's dying body. But they still clearly cannot imagine why anybody would have a problem with such a thing. One wonders how the staff of the SPLC would feel if one of their colleagues was murdered in such a manner? Doubtless they would shrug it off. Yet it remains that case that here is this "anti-racist" organisation, largely made up of white men who present themselves as being anti-racists, and yet who spend their time attacking a black immigrant woman.

Hirsi Ali is of course well known for being an ex-Muslim. But the SPLC's list of "anti-Muslim activists" also includes a practising Muslim. Of course, if Maajid Nawaz were an Islamic extremist then SPLC would have nothing to say about him. But Maajid Nawaz is not an extremist -- he is one of the most principled and courageous people around calling out the extremists in his faith for their bigotry and hatred. He does so, like Hirsi Ali, at no small risk to himself. If the jihadists within Islam are ever going to be defeated, it will be because of Muslims like Nawaz, who are willing to argue for reform on liberal, progressive, pluralistic and democratic grounds.

Yet for the SPLC, this Muslim is not just not the right type of Muslim -- he is "anti-Muslim." The charges that SPLC levels against Nawaz are (this is not satire) that he has (a) co-operated with, rather than worked against, the British police (b) suggested that customers in banks should have to show their faces (c) once failed to abide by the most hardline interpretation of Islamic blasphemy law (d) once visited a strip club on his stag-night.

The Southern Poverty Law Center decided to turn itself into a racist organization, with its attacks on principled and courageous critics of radical Islamism such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali (left), a prominent ex-Muslim writer, and Maajid Nawaz (right), a moderate practising Muslim writer, radio host and politician. (Images source: Wikimedia Commons)

Who knows what lapses in personal decorum have occurred among the staff of the SPLC? Perhaps one of them once had extra-marital intercourse? Or perhaps one of them once consumed a glass of Merlot, in contravention of the hardest-line interpretations of Islamic scripture? Who knows, but who the hell would anybody else be to judge, and who the hell do the SPLC think they are? It seems that the SPLC has decided to turn itself from an anti-racist organisation into a racist one. An organisation that used to prosecute white racists has ended up attacking black and Muslim immigrants. At the top of any list of "hate-groups," the SPLC must in future be sure to place itself.

Douglas Murray, British author, commentator and public affairs analyst, is based in London, England.

Comment on this item

Name:

Email Address:

Comments:

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Gatestone Institute greatly appreciates your comments. The editors reserve the right, however, not to publish comments containing: incitement to violence, profanity, or any broad-brush slurring of any race, ethnic group or religion. Gatestone also reserves the right to edit comments for length, clarity and grammar. All thoughtful suggestions and analyses will be gratefully considered. Commenters' email addresses will not be displayed publicly. Gatestone regrets that, because of the increasingly great volume of traffic, we are not able to publish them all.

19 Reader Comments

John W. • Dec 10, 2016 at 14:39

After reading this article, I fully realized that organizations like the SPLC are trying to control what we think and what we feel. These groups are forcing our society to be a group of non-thinking lemmings that is dominated by a few elitists who remind us that only they know what is best for us.

Any person who speaks out against a destructive group or destructive thinking is labelled a "pariah." Freedom of speech is at risk. Political correctness in my view is a form of censorship. Organizations like the SPLC and Liberal college professors who are promoting this nonsense, will themselves eventually bitten in the behind by their own pronouncements.

Reply->

Peter Terry • Nov 4, 2016 at 16:29

I hope you follow up to this article to write about the use of this new rhetoric to attack the defenders of our way of life. This new rhetoric which brands with the epithet "racist" all Americans who do not side with BLM; this new rhetoric which brands "racist" who object to imperialistic Islam, even as they excoriate the vestiges of Western imperialism...which are discovered under every rock and behind every tree. People in glass houses should not throw stones. Jesus said, "By their fruits you will know them." Exactly. The "racists" are those who maltreat those with different physical features than themselves. And while those who maltreat those with different religious affiliations than their own are not, using standard English vocabulary, "racists", they are "religious bigots" and there is every reason to hold them accountable for their actions. But telling the truth is never a crime, even if it is unpopular and uncomfortable. The real heroes of our time are not the noisy advocates of BLM and Islamic imperialism...they are the few who stand up when they are maltreated, who call out their oppressors, and who insist on justice. In my youth most of those real heroes were Democrats in the USA and Laborites in the UK. But the tables have turned, and now the "anti-racists" have become the "racists". Let's keep our eyes on the kind of society we want to live in, and not on labels.

Reply->

VPB • Oct 31, 2016 at 17:48

The SPLC lists the American Family Association, part of the Family Resource Council, as an extremist group on their "watchlist." They actually gave this list to the US DoD a few years back to use as training so soldiers could spot groups and their followers to be wary of and to put on their own watchlists. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/splc-urges-army-to-declare-american-family-association-an-extremist-group

Though SPLC lists several "horrible" comments from AFA staff, here is the one related to the topic at hand, which the SPLC labels as "offensive":"[Islam] is, in fact, a religion of war, violence, intolerance, and physical persecution of non-Muslims."–Tim Wildmon, March 6, 2012

Horrible, horrible Tim Wildmon. How dare you? (Sarcasm font)

But not only is the SPLC confused about who is "hateful," their designation is also causing hate.

The inclusion of the AFA on the SPLC list led a gunman to open fire at the Family Resource Council office building in Washington, DC. The gunman targeted the offices bc of the designation on the SPLC site. He showed up with a gun, and a backpack of Chic-fil-A sandwiches to smear in the victim's faces after he shot them. He was stopped by the security guard, who took a bullet, but likely saved the lives of dozens of people.

"That crime happened courtesy of Floyd Corkins and his Glock pistol, and his backpack filled with Chick-fil-A sandwiches. His target on August 15, 2012 was the FRC office in D.C., where Corkins admitted to authorities he wanted to "kill as many as I could." He was referring to Tony Perkins and his FRC employees...

Here's where it gets really good. Corkins told the FBI he used the SPLC's website as a source for choosing an "anti-gay" target, but SPLC co-founder Morris Dees declared that his organization was not responsible for the nine-millimeter bullet in the arm of Leo Johnson, the guard who stopped Corkins. Dees told CNS News that "having a group on our Hate Map doesn't cause anybody to attack them," even though Corkins said it did."

Reply->

James Bolton • Oct 30, 2016 at 13:40

I don't agree that Muslim Extremist are the real threat to our Western Society. Islam itself is a threat to all civilized modern cultures when you understand the requirements of Jihad and other Islamic teachings. However, Islam is not the only "extreme" threat to our western cultures.

A greater threat to our way of life is an extreme government and the decadent and power craving individuals that ignore constitutional restraints who actually aid in the current aims of world Jihad.

Conflict is good business when you make a business out of government. When government is allowed by the people to become the monster it has, you can only expect corruption and further decay of character. Thus their deeds will continue to degrade as we are daily becoming a fascist state regardless of Islam or over-reaching globalist mindsets.

Only the people of a nation will be able to redirect the path we are on. We will have the type of government we deserve, for government is a reflection of the people, their morals and what they will tolerate. One of our founders wisely stated' "An unruly people will have harsh task masters". So true.

The cure starts at the local level.

Reply->

Ghost Machine • Oct 29, 2016 at 13:28

Douglas, I don't know if you read these comments, but I really pray you do. Whilst always having had my suspicions, in recent days I have become convinced that Nawaz is not genuine. For me it seems clearer by the day that he is the same Islamist he always was, I find his new position on LBC to be extremely perturbing.

The current furor over the SPLC (in addition that is, to all the conservative Muslims who shun him) is a very convenient smokescreen to westerners who might have their doubts about his motives. He does not deserve to be on that list which I would consider a list of people I greatly admire for the most part- I'm disappointed you weren't on it!

I have read and listened to a lot of Nawaz has to say and found countless circumstantial examples of sentiments which don't quite add up, often conveying double messages and cultivating confusion regarding Islam to the people he is talking to.

On LBC for example, he spends a huge portion of the time discussing people's attitudes towards Muslims, without ever really discussing the ideas constituting the foundation of Islam, which in turn drive the behaviour and attitudes of Muslims. When inevitably challenged by listeners on Islam itself, he quickly shifts the focus to Muslims, saying something along the lines of: "So even if you're right, what would you do? Deport all 3 million Muslims in the UK?". Thus he shifts the debate from an ideological one to pseudo-racial one. The inevitable result is that the average listener will feel racist for even daring to voice concern over Islam. Truly scary.

Another fascinating example is the famous "Jesus and Mo" tweet. Notice that he chose a cartoon which shortens Mohammed's name to the point of ambiguity and never explicitly states that Mo is in fact Mohammed. In fact, according to one of the comics which deals with the subject Mo, claims to be a body double for obvious reasons. Used in this way, Maajid retains plausible deniability. Sure you could say that this was foolish as it turned many Muslims against him, but my argument is that his message isn't aimed at Muslims, but at us here in the west. The tweet said: "This Jesus & Mo @JandMo cartoon is not offensive&I'm sure GOD IS GREATER [my emphasis] than to feel threatened by it. This is followed by Allah Huakhbar in Arabic. So he's written Allah Hu Akhbar twice followed by a cartoon which purportedly goes against what most contemporary Muslims believe (if not the actual jurisprudence itself). The double message is clear- to those people who pick up on the fact that he isn't explicitly naming Mohammed he is signalling which side he is on.

In the messy aftermath of the tweet, not once does Nawaz ever explicitly state that the the cartoon was of the prophet Mohammed.

Other people have also voiced similar suspicions (https://vkchatterjee.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/sinister-and-dangerous-the-stealth-supremacism-of-maajid-nawaz/ for example- though I don't buy all of the arguments he makes), and it's their observations which aroused my suspicions even further.

I know you that you are personally very well acquainted with Nawaz, and whilst I obviously don't know your private thoughts on the man, I really hope you can at least give some thought to what I've written. I am fully aware of how ridiculous this all sounds on the surface, but the more I see and hear of him, the more I'm convinced I'm right. I've seen so many of your videos where you are the one presented as the extremist crackpot so I hope you will take what I've written seriously. I'm Jewish and half Israeli, so kind of sensitive to this whole scenario- after all, my future living in the UK depends on it. As a result I've read a great deal about the other precedents: CAIR, Aslan, Mehdi etc. I believe that Nawaz is just the latest and most effective iteration of this strategy.

p.s. I also don't understand the reason for the choice of person in naming his organisation- Quilliam, whose political views are described on Wikipedia thusly: "Quilliam argued that Muslims should not fight Muslims on behalf of European powers. He denounced British foreign policy in Sudan[15] and called for a worldwide Caliphate. It was as a result of his political views and his allegiance to the Ottoman Caliph that led some to denounce him as a traitor."

But I guess that's a conversation for another time...

Reply->

John Sevins • Oct 29, 2016 at 11:05

I certainly agree with Murray that the SPLC article is reckless, poorly argued, and dangerous to Ayaan and Maajid. But then Murray commits a similar misstep in labeling the SPLC "racist." On what grounds? He seems only to point out that Ayaan is a black immigrant female and the SPLC is composed primarily of white men. This does not make them racists (unless their attack on Ayaan was based on her being black).

I think reactionary language, such as that used here by Mr Murray, only reduces the impact of his work and undermines the (very valid) attacks on the ideas containing in the SPLC article.

Reply->

Carl • Oct 29, 2016 at 10:57

After donating to SPLC for more than 30 years, I have finally had enough of their ultra liberalism. They were once a great organization that worked for good causes, but not so much now. They have gotten involved in politics and backing causes before they have researched them properly. I feel sorry for Morris Dees and Joe Levine because the new faces have totally ruined what they invented with the best of intentions.

Reply->

Andrew Boughton • Oct 28, 2016 at 15:14

Great piece, the logical end point of most activists being not a celebration of life, but of death. It is either passive non-existence or, as in this case, positive non-existence.

Reply->

waljay • Oct 28, 2016 at 14:24

SPLC is in a time warp that says that only the traditional KKK can do bad things. Everyone else, as long as they're not of European extraction, can say or do anything they want if, and only if, they're attacking Western values. Should they be dark skinned people defending western values they're "Uncle Tom's" of course. Under this demented outlook, SPLC defends and extends every black supremist and Muslim supremist organization. In short, "White skin KKK bad, dark skin KKK Good"! What a huge failing in what used to be a good organization.

Reply->

MARTHA • Oct 28, 2016 at 13:03

Great piece. Sad to see Murray writing about Nawaz like a fan however. Murray has in the past rightly called out Nawaz for having been an 'extremist'- surely what Nawaz now is is an apologist for Islam? Mawaz pretending there is an acceptable version of Islam is wrong. Clearly the core texts of Islam lead to terrorism directly.

Reply->

jayell • Oct 28, 2016 at 11:53

There are two closely-related phenomena that I call 'Inappropriate Conceptual Extension' (ICE) and 'Inappropriate Conceptual Transposition' (lCT), both very similar, and which seem to be at work here. Briefly, ICE is where a concept or idea is taken past the point of its logical relevance through excessive zeal or/and intellectual tunnel-vision on the part of its proponents, and ICT is where a concept/idea is taken out of its correct context and placed in another, usually as a spurious justification for pressure-group or political activity. A good example of these phenomena is found in current feminism, where the thrust of a justifiable 'equality' debate has continued despite passing a point of reasonable resolution and is now used to promote an appallingly aggressive and destructive misandry. Whether or not the parties responsible for indulging in this sort of 'intellectual enterprise' do so out of conscious malice or misguided idealism is irrelevant. The consequences of their intemperance are too damaging to allow avoidance of serious challenge.

Reply->

DAVID A FISHER • Oct 28, 2016 at 10:40

I also find Douglas to be right on point. My fear is that Douglas and those like him are still the minority in the media and their voice is barely being heard in political circles. We are still seeing ridiculous and naive policies from governments all across the world. Theresa May's recent announcement of the Sharia law investigation in the UK comes to mind, where she's appointed Imams to do the investigation. This is like appointing the KKK to investigate racism laws. You couldn't make up how stupid this is. Islam has inserted itself into society as the loudest most offended minority in our history and the levels of dishonesty are palpable. What can we do to have the mainstream media and political organisations understand, that the fundamental principles of western culture are not only under attack, but are already being eroded by Islam?

If only all radicals were as inconsequential as Maajid Nawaz, then we could all go to bed with a smile on our faces.

Read Majid Nawaz's turgid book 'Radical' (assuming you can get through it) and you will find a shallow self-serving publicity-hungry narcissist marked by utter selfishness and who remains an Islamic radical for all his protestations of some Damascene conversion.

Co-founder of the Quillian 'think tank' he is the photogenic face of yet another sucker on the public tit.

A lightweight, self-pitying egotist, craving admiration and interested only in his manufactured image it staggers me that politicians, clergymen and 'community workers' embrace this histrionic pipsqueak with his delusions of grandeur. It only shows them for the gullible fools they are.

Personally I wouldn't trust the little w*nker further than I can spit and I wish the Egyptians had kept him in al-Gihaz for some seriously unpleasant jail time instead of the easy life he enjoyed.

In my opinion 'Radical' is a badly executed exercise in taqiyya.

Reply->

Scott Rose • Oct 28, 2016 at 09:31

That the SPLC has made itself an enforcer of Islamic blasphemy laws in the West is extremely worrisome.

I note in passing that over the centuries, many Muslim artists have depicted Mohammed -- the stricture against doing it is something that more recently has been adopted as a weapon against non-Muslims.

The meme Nawaz created, which the SPLC has labeled as "extremist," simply showed Jesus and Mohammed saying hello to each other. I'm reminded of the West Bank blogger Waleed al-Husseini, who made very mild posts either in support of atheism, or satirizing Islam. The Palestinian Authority arrested him and jailed him without due process, as mobs of outraged Muslims in the streets clamored for his death. (The usual gang of anti-Israel, allegedly 'pro-Palestinian activists' were nowhere to be found). A notion widely circulated among Palestinians and other Muslim societies was that al-Husseini's blog posts constituted "incitement," i.e. he deserved to have mobs in the streets calling for his death, and to be jailed.

If we don't take a stand now, that is the direction our freedoms will go in the West.

I also note that for the SPLC to label these people as "extremists" is inflammatory and inappropriate. In normal reporting, the word "extremist" applies to individuals or groups who use severe violence as a means to an ideological end. Thus, Omar Mateen was an extremist, and the Tsarnaev brothers were extremists -- but Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

And, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has already had to live under police protection because of the Islamic threats on her life -- the SPLC has gone and put an additional target on her back by mislabeling her an "Anti-Muslim extremist."

Reply->

Tom • Oct 28, 2016 at 09:13

Douglas, Hope you follow up on this article with an 'in-depth expose' of the American-hating, Constitution-hating multibillionaire named George Soros, his history, his objectives, and his financing of extreme left-wing groups LIKE the Southern Poverty Law Center (SEE: http://sorosfiles.com/soros/2012/05/the-soros-supported-southern-poverty-law-center-and-its-connection-to-moscow-funded-russia-today.html) AND his tremendous financial support of groups like Center for American Progress, MoveOn.Org, the Working Families Party, Black Lives Matter in addition to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Reply->

lj • Oct 28, 2016 at 08:55

I can't speak for others, but a decade of outrageous hypocrisies, societal manipulation, and outright deceptions have left me almost numb to the constant scandals and atrocities committed daily by and to my fellow humans. There is an exhausting sense of 'when will it end', and I know the answer to that but not the timing.

I have heard and read Hirsi Ali, she always impresses me with her clarity, speaking sanely in a senseless media void.

Reply->

jeb • Oct 28, 2016 at 07:24

Unfortunately, if you want people to believe you are not a radical Muslim you need a modicum of proof. I don't see it here and that disappoints me. It isn't that I don't want to believe in moderate Muslims, but what difference do they make? That is what I need to believe, that they can make a difference. Obama wanted us to believe the Arab Spring in Egypt was a moderate, modernist, reforming movement, instead he was backing the Muslim Brotherhood and they were kicked out by the military. Egypt is not closer to reforms than at any other time as far as I know.

It is also hard to believe there are moderate Muslims when we have a President and leadership that won't acknowledge the existence of radical Muslims. Who is speaking up for reality?

Reply->

Jeff Page • Oct 28, 2016 at 05:59

Douglas Murray is always on the ball! SPLC morons are solely interested in maintaining their own lifestyles and salaries, and will dive down deep to do so. Even to treachery, lies, deceit, with the added dose of backward thinking.

It's amazing how such organisations are able to morph into what is suddenly the trendy topic and not even take a breath.

Those at the top are hypocrites who will rollover if the strategy of the current topic changes. Very much as a chameleon adapts to suit the surroundings, so the SPLC adapts in order to survive. I doubt whether any of their staff has had extra-marital relations or consumed a glass of Merlot, they are obviously too anally retentive to even contemplate such normal things!

Where does their income come from? Are they using donations, taxpayers money, media commissions, or do they consider them to be a charitable organisation?

Whatever and wherever they are funded from needs to look closely at what their current agenda appears to be. The head honcho and minions should be advised that their actions are treasonous and so should cease immediately, and any sources of income to their fighting fund needs to be stopped. There is enough censorship being imposed from government sources, to prevent any anti Muslim feelings. Maybe Saudi Arabia is behind them and supplying large amounts of cash to achieve their aim of Islamic domination worldwide. Just a thought!

In reality the SPLC is a nonentity that is grasping at straws in order to keep their own positions and agendas in the public arena. What we need is a Gladiator with the verbal skills of Douglas Murray to deliver the death blow to such an organistion as the now totally discredited SPLC! And soon!

Reply->

Albert Reingewirtz • Oct 28, 2016 at 05:49

I discovered the exact same thing one day. I survived the Shoa. They continue to mail me stuff. It goes to the trash un-opened.